High-Level Debate on Kyrgyz Violence

Saule Mukhametrakhimova

Central Asia Editor

Wednesday, 21 July, 2010

The link has been copied

The aftermath and implications of last month’s inter-ethnic violence in southern Kyrgyzstan was the central theme of a round-table debate organised by IWPR and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The June 23 gathering, in which participants in Washington and Bishkek were connected via a video-link, discussed a wide range of issues, included relations between Uzbek and Kyrgyz communities; the impact of the Kyrgyz violence on neighbouring countries; how people in Kyrgyzstan feel about outside reaction to the turmoil; and the forthcoming parliamentary elections.

The debate - involving Central Asian experts, western scholars, representatives of the US State Department, USAID as well as international organisations - took place almost two weeks after the inter-ethnic fighting in southern Kyrgyzstan.

The violence broke out in Osh on June 10-11 and spread to Jalalabad and rural areas around both cities. In its latest casualty update for July 12, the Kyrgyz health ministry said 312 people were now known to have died in several days of clashes.

The bloodshed displaced 400,000 people, mainly ethnic Uzbeks, although most have begun moving back, including the 80,000 who sought refuge over the border in Uzbekistan.

Discussion participants pointed out that reconciliation efforts between the two communities should be led by the authorities to make sure that they are not dominated by certain groups with religious or any other agenda.

Kadyr Malikov, head of the Religion, Law and Politics Centre in Bishkek, said, “At the moment, the conflict has subsided a bit and there is no direct confrontation, but the problem has not gone away.”

According to Malikov, relations between the two communities remain tense, “There are visible signs of what I would call a bit of a radical mood on both sides that suffered and lost their loved ones [in the conflict], particularly the Uzbeks in Jalalabad itself and in the city of Osh.”

Malikov said some of this anger is fuelled by Uzbek disappointment with the central authorities’ and law enforcement bodies’ failure to catch and prosecute those responsible for the violence.

Moreover, people do not feel that the military and police are doing their job properly in restoring law and order and providing security.

“Jalalabad is practically not protected contrary to what has been reported in media. There are check-points only on the perimeter of the city,” Malikov said, noting that local sources say there’s no police presence on the streets, with some local Uzbeks apparently determined to get hold of weapons to protect themselves.

Malikov warned that the authorities’ waning efforts threaten to leave a vacuum which could be filled by religious groups, such as the banned Islamic missionary group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has a strong following in southern Kyrgyzstan.

He gave the example of a village in the Jalalabad region which is effectively under control of locals who are Hizb ut-Tahrir activists.

“What’s more, many refugees are finding refuge in this particular village saying that it was saved because of Hizb ut-Tahrir,” Malikov said.

Speakers also raised the issue of aid distribution by some humanitarian organisations which, in Kyrgyzstan, is seen as favouring the Uzbek community, a perception that does not help reconciliation efforts.

Valentin Bogatyrev, head of the analytical centre Perspektiva, noted that due to widespread corruption among Kyrgyz officials aid was not reaching all the people in the south who needed it.

“It turns out that those Kyrgyz who suffered, who became ... refugees inside the country, are left practically with no help,” Bogatyrev said.

He said the international community’s portrayal of one side as an aggressor and the other as victim had a negative impact on public opinion inside the country.

Malikov agreed saying that foreign media, including Russian, played a role in presenting a partial view of events in Kyrgyzstan, despite both sides suffering.

As for the impact of the Kyrgyz events on the rest of the Central Asian region, political analyst Mars Sariev predicted that Uzbek and Kazak leaders will become more authoritarian to prevent the same thing happening in their countries.

Kyrgyzstan is the only Central Asian state that has replaced a sitting head of state. Kazakstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are still run by the same leaders who came to power following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and they show no sign of stepping down.

According to the new constitution approved last month in Kyrgyzstan, the president is restricted to one term only and an upper age limit of 70 has been set for the post.

Analysts also commented on the surprisingly restrained response of the Uzbek leadership to the inter-ethnic conflict, as there was concern that Tashkent might use the instability as an excuse to intervene in southern Kyrgyzstan and strengthen their influence there.

The Uzbek government blamed the violence on outside forces “whose interests are totally remote from the interests of the Kyrgyz people”.

As Ishenbai Abdurazakov, former government official and a politician said, any emotionally-loaded response from President Islam Karimov, blaming the Kyrgyz side, would have made the conflict worse.

In Sariev’s view, though Uzbekistan provided help for Uzbeks refugees, it did not want them, possibly because their experience of living in a relatively democratic country – and contact with Hizb ut-Tahrir dissidents who fled Uzbekistan for Kyrgyzstan over the years – might create problems for the Tashkent authorities.

“Therefore they (ethnic Uzbeks from Kyrgyzstan) are seen as explosive elements and Karimov does not need this,” Sariev said.

Another issue experts turned their attention to was the parliamentary election expected to take place at the end of the summer or beginning of the autumn.

Some expressed concern that the parliamentary race – like last month’s referendum – will be source of renewed instability with possible clashes between competing groups or agitation by anti-government forces and supporters of the ousted president.

The largely peaceful conduct of the referendum on June 27 meant that Kyrgyz government’s high-risk strategy of going ahead with voting despite the recent violence paid off. The turnout was a strong 69 per cent, with nine out of ten who voted saying yes to a new constitution.

Bogatyrov warned that any attempt by the authorities to interfere with the coming election would not be tolerated by the public, who have become accustomed to political pluralism.

“I will say more, that it seems to me that even a slightest attempt [to interfere in the vote] will lead to an explosion and to this government being swept away,” Bogatyrov said.

He expressed concern that some parties that fail to get into the legislature might challenge the election results. According to Malikov, every party is represented in the south and have military wings, which he referred to as mini-armies.

Tamerlan Ibraimov, who heads the Bishkek-based Centre for Political and Legal Studies, commented on the constitutional provision that limits parliamentary majority to 50 per cent plus five, believing this will lead to unstable government.

“Some politicians say this way the opposition will have a voice in the parliament, but in my view it will hinder effectiveness of the parliament,” Ibraimov said.

Saule Mukhametrakhimova is IWPR Central Asia editor in London.